Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to reporters at the State Department about the U.S. response to the use of chemical weapons on civilians by Syrian forces.

He said that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made preparations three days before a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus and fired the rockets from regime-controlled areas.

For video, click image above.

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain

Citing words of support against the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime from the Arab League, Turkey, France and Australia, Secretary of State John Kerry says "America should feel confident and gratified that we are not alone in our condemnation" of recent events in Syria.

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain

Secretary of State says US will not wait for UN weapons inspectors to finish work before decision on military action.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the United States will not wait for UN weapons inspectors to finish their work before deciding whether or not to launch military strikes against Syria.

In a half-hour speech delivered at the State Department on Friday, Kerry laid out a circumstantial case linking the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to an attack in the Damascus suburbs last week.

Kerry said that 1,429 people were killed in the attack, though other reported death tolls have varied.

The US government released a four-page document on Friday which assessed, with "high confidence," that the Syrian government carried out the attack.

"We know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programme in the entire Middle East," Kerry said. "We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year... and we know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition."

But Kerry did not outline any specific plans for an attack, saying only that the administration of Barack Obama would "continue talking" with Congress and its allies.

The British parliament voted against a resolution urging a military strike on Thursday night, and Prime Minister David Cameron said he would respect parliament's wishes.

'Not the mandate'

A team of UN weapons inspectors spent the week in Damascus and made several visits to the site of the attack in East Ghouta. The team departed on Friday, and will spend the coming days or weeks reviewing its findings.

Kerry, however, said the US would not wait for those results before deciding whether to act.

"President Obama, we in the US, we believe in the UN, we have great respect for it," Kerry said.

"[But] the UN investigation will not confirm who used these chemical weapons. That is not the mandate of the UN investigation. It will only affirm whether such weapons were used."

In a separate conference call on Friday, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, dodged questions about whether Assad himself directly ordered the attack, suggesting that the US government does not have evidence that he did.

"He's the decision-maker, he's ultimately in charge of employment," the official said. "The US made clear some time ago that Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime."

Administration officials also stressed that any military action would not be "open-ended," or "impose regime change".

"It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open-ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well under way," Kerry said, stressing that it would not in any way resemble Iraq or Afghanistan.

France said on Friday it still backed military action to punish Assad's government for the August 21 attack.

President Francois Hollande told the daily Le Monde he still supported taking "firm" punitive action over an attack he said had caused "irreparable" harm to the Syrian people, adding that he would work closely with France's allies.http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 48956.html

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain

Kerrblur2 wrote:god you people are just ON TOP of being the first to post the VERY next update on this syria thing. lol

i wander whos gonna get the thread when obama speaks in the next few minutes.

Let syria kill eachother, who cares, jeeeez look at the active topics its people trying to be the first to post the newest update on syria.

In my opinion we should care. Under no circumstance is it OK or wise to allow so many innocent people be killed by their government OR by any other conflicting group. Just because there is a lot of violence in the middle-east does not justify your advocation of letting them all be killed. I have been volunteering and helping the refugees from this crap in Syria and most of them are average, NORMAL people who are victims of this conflict started by Bashar al Assad when he fired anti tank and anti personnel weapons into the crowd of people demonstrating against him in March 2011. That statement that all the people in Syria should die off is cynical, unwise, close-minded, and evil. It is not the fault of the average person there. They do not deserve this. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is a fool!

Last edited by Termite on Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Kerrblur2 wrote:i do admit this site sometimes gets a story even before the mainstream news.

Termite - We are not the police of the world, we try to be, and nothing come from doing anything in syria, we help the rebels (aka alqaeda) and they still hate us. We dont do shit, they still hate us.

It does not matter

Let them die and kill eachother.

shits gonna hit the fan if we attack.

I agree the shit will hit the fan. I agree with all of your statement except that I don't think we or anyone should allow chemical weapons to be used. I agree that we should not put anyone on the ground there and I agree that they should be allowed to fight each other until one or the other wins. But the world signed on to the Geneva Convention and several other conventions and to turn a blind eye and allow this to happen without intervention would be a grave mistake. I believe that a message should be sent to Assad and the rest of the world that the international community will not allow this type of slaughter to take place. And if it has to be US then we can maintain our position as the moral leaders of the world, which we have failed at many times and succeeded many times. But to ignore these chemical attacks would be a grave mistake and a huge blow to the world's opinion of the United States. People in the states are told that the rest of the world hates us, this is not true, even in Iran the average person on the street likes America and does not want to have any conflict. In fact, I have visited every place that people are said to "hate us" and it was not true even in the least. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Except the Israelis told me, many of them, that they felt that the United states was inferior to them and SHOULD be serving them otherwise they thought the United States should fall. This was actually said to me by almost every Israeli that I met ever. I have been travelling the world for 6 years now since I decided to leave that country and learn the truth for myself and I can say, from personal experience that the FSA does not hate us. An exact quote I have been told by many of the FSA members I have met is; " We thought the United States was the hero of the world. Why won't you help us fight Assad?" Even now, when I talk to the FSA commanders they will still say to me, " Where in the hell are the weapons that they said they would send us?" The UK and the United states' media is controlled and filtered "Goebbels" style, they do not tell you guys the truth. And it is impossible to find on the internet. People need to realize, if WE don't do it then who in the heck will? Actually, based on the history of the past 90 years, the United States IS the police of the world and a lot of bad people would have succeeded and a lot of bad people would be in power. The world is a better place because of it. I think the chemical weapons capability should be surgically destroyed and then let the civil war take it's course.

Last edited by Termite on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All posts and media uploads are expressed opinions of the contributing members and
are not representative of or endorsed by the owners or employees of Disclose.tv.

This site may contain copyrighted material. Members may make such material available
in an effort to advance the awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights,
economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We
believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law.